1887

CORNELLUNIVERSITYLIBRARY

MASONIC ORIGINES,

BY

ALBERT PIKE.

Published by the Supreme Council of the 33d Degree,

for the Southern Jurisdiction of the

United States.

Second Edition.

WASHINGTON

:

1887.

311

i^t^a.

MASONIC ORIGINES.

A Masonic Degree is a rank and dignity with which one is, bylegal authority, invested ; the investiture consisting in a ceremony

of initiation or reception, longer or shorter, scenic, spectacular,

or instructive, or with scenic pomp, and instruction intermingled

;

in administering to him certain vows or obligations ; and in the

putting him in possession of certain modes of recognition, con-

sisting generally of signs, words, and grips or 'tokens'.

A 'Kite' is an aggregation and succession of any number of

Degrees, given by one or more Bodies, but always by the author-

ity of a single Supreme Government.

Of most of the Degrees styled ' Masonic,' the time and the

manner of origin are unknown to us. They have either been

made by individuals, who were their authors and composers,

or by Committees of Bodies. The earliest were undoubtedly

framed and set on foot by individuals, themselves makers of them,

or for whom they were made by others.

Except the first possessor or possessors, no one can ever obtain

legal investiture with any Degree, unless by receiving it from

him or them, or from a person or persons or a Body, having power

derived from him or them, and so as if immediately from him or

them; by assuming the required vows or obligations; and by

being, as if by such first possessor or possessors, entrusted with

the arcana or modes of recognition, and the oral explanations of

the Symbols employed.

A Rite might consist of a single Degree ; but whether of one

or more, the first possessor or possessors of the Degree or System,

or his or their successors, have the right to make or to adopt Con-

stitutions, Institutes, Statutes, or Regulations, which shall be the

Organic or Supreme Law of the Degree or Rite, providing a

system of government for it and for its administration;providing

for the creation of Bodies, for fees, dues and revenues, and for

a judicial system ; with other legislation needed for its successful

propagation and well-being. By this legislation every one already

of, or afterwards becoming a member of the Rite, is bound,

being in law a party to it and one of the makers of it ; and no

man can be of the Degree or Rite, and repudiate or set at

nought its fundamental law. If he does that, he cuts himself

off from it.

However, wherever and whenever drafted or made, such Con-stitutions, Institutes, &c., become the law of the Rite by beingadopted by the first possessors of it; and this adoption makesthem none the less obligatory, even if their real origin be mythical,

or if they purport untruly to have had a more ancient and special

origin.

For, as no one can ever be lawfully invested with the Degreeor Degrees of the Rite, without swearing allegiance to its SupremePower and obedience to these Constitutions, no one claiming to

be so invested can ever be at liberty to deny their authenticityor impeach them.

And, evidently, no one can ever claim any rights or powers,titles or dignities, created by such Constitutions or provided forby them only, if he denies their authenticity. To do so is simplycheatery; in French, mpercherie; cozenage, rascality.

Degrees and Rites have been invented and created as the meansof organization of associations for various purposes ; for mutualassistance and relief

;for the prosecution of special studies; for

the purposes of social, political or religious reforms; or merelyfor notoriety, show, pomp, and to obtain for their possessors afactitious dignity and supposititious self-importance; and evenfor mere jollification and vulgar burlesque.The benefits intended to be so secured cannot rightfully belong

to any person except those who, paying the prices for the Degreeor Degrees fixed by the law of the Degree or Rite, have receivedIt or them at the hands or by the authorization of a lawful andlegitimate Body or Ofiicer of the Rite, having the supreme powerderived from the first possessors; and except those who, byassuming the required obligations, have become entitled to, andhave been put in possession of, the arcana and modes of recogni-

tion—belonging to each Degree. To endeavor to procure for

one's self those benefits, whether pecuniary, or of consideration

and dignity, or of relief or assistance, in any other way, is plain

dishonesty and peculation : and for any one not legally in pos-

session of Degrees to take money for conferring them, is the

obtaining of money under false pretences. One who does it

is well styled in French an escroe.

No Body can possess or own Degrees, nor get title, (as the

Grand Orient of France used to pretend to do,) by purchase

and cession, of Degrees, if it be composed wholly or in part of

persons who have not been invested with them ; nor can continue

to be owners or possessors of Degrees which it rejects, repudiates,

and refuses to work, or forbids its subordinate Bodies to work.

Those who are only invested with a lower Degree cannot confer

upon others a higher one. A Body of Apprentices cannot make

Fellow-Crafts, nor a Body of Fellow-Crafts make Master-Masons,

nor could Cemeau's Consistory of 32d8 make 33ds. It needs no

argument to prove that no one can give a Degree to another,

unless he has it himself.

Nor can a Body, wholly or in part composed of Master-Masons,

legislate for or control Bodies of Eoyal-Arch Masons, or those of

the higher Degrees of another or the same Rite.

These are self-evident axioms, and fundamental principles of

Masonic Law and of common sense. Keep them in mind.

The primary or earliest Rite of Free-Masonry was the Sym-

bolic, commonly known as the 'Blue' Masonry, consisting at first

of no 'Degrees,' properly so called. When the First or Second

Degree was invented and adopted, or by whom or how, is not

known. It is only known that until about a certain date there

were no Degrees, and that abovi 1723,. perhaps as late as 1725,

the Third was adopted. The three were invented and came into

use before there was any other organization than that of the

Blue Lodges. The Third Degree, at least, belonged to the

English Free-Masonry, and could be legally acquired from it

only.

In regard to the fundamental law of the English Masonry, as

embodied in what are known as Anderson's "Constitutions of the

Free-Masons," they were first published at London in 1723, " con-

taining the History, Charges, Regulations, &c., of that Most

Ancient and Eight Worshipful Fraternity," dedicated by J. F.

Desaguliers, Deputy of the Duke of Wharton, Right Worshipful

Grand Master, to the Duke of Montagu, Ex-Grand Master.

The whole purported to be " collected from their general rec-

ords, and their faithful traditions of many ages." The History

stated that King Athelstan (about A. D. 930) " encourag'd

many Masons from France," who " brought with them the Charges

and Regulations of the Lodges preserv'd since the Roman times,

who also prevail'd with the King to improve the Constitution of

the .English Lodges according to the foreign model :" and that

"Prince Edwin, the said King's youngest son, summoned all the

Masons in the Realm to meet him in a Congregation at York,

who came and composed a General Lodge, of which he was

Grand Master; and having brought with them all the writings

and records extant, some in Greek, some in Latin, some in

French, and other languages, from the contents thereof that

Assembly did frame the Constitution and Charges of an English

Lodge." Also, " that those Charges and Laws of Free-Masons

have been seen and perused by our late Sovereign, King HenryVL, and by the Lords of his honorable Council, who haveallow'd

them, and said that they be right good and reasonable to be

holden, as they have been drawn out and collected from the

records of ancient times."

The "Charges" are thus intituled: "The Charges of a Free-

Mason, extracted from the ancient records of Lodges beyond sea, andof those in England, Scotland and Ireland, for the use of the

Lodges in London."

And the Regulations: "General Regulations, compiled first

by Mr. George Payne, Anno 1720, when he was Grand Master,and approved by the Grand Lodge on St. John Baptist's Day,Anno 1721," &c " and now by the command of oursaid Right Worshipful Grand Master Montagu, the author of this

book has compar'd them with and reduc'd them to the AncientRecords and immemorial usages of the Fraternity, and digestedthem into this new method, with several proper explications, forthe use of the Lodges in and about London and Westminster."

In Article 39 of these Regulations it is stated that the approvaland consent of the majority of all the Brethren present must be" solemnly desir'd " to make new Regulations binding, " as it wasdesir'd and obtain'd for these Regulations, when propos'd by the

Grand Lodge, to about 150 Brethren, on St. John Baptist's Day,1721."

The "approbation" of the whole, by the Grand Master, Dep-uty Grand Master and Grand Wardens, and the Masters andWardens oftwenty particular Lodges, (amongwhom was '

' XVII.

,

James Anderson, A. M. , the author of this Book, Master,")

recited, that the Free-Masons of England had twice thought it

necessary to correct their Constitutions, Charges and Eegulations

;

first, in the reign of King Athelstan, the Saxon, and, long after,

in the reign of King Edward IV., the Norman: that the old

Constitutions in England had been much interpolated, mangled,and miserably corrupted : that the late Grand Master, the Dukeof Montagu, had " order'd the author to peruse, correct anddigest, into a new and better method, the History, Charges andRegulations of the Ancient Fraternity ;

" and that he had, ac-

cordingly, "examin'd several copies from Italy and Scotland, andsundry parts of England, and from thence, (tho' in many things

erroneous,) and from several other ancient Records of Masons," he

had "drawn forth the above written new Constitutions, with the

Charges and General Regulations."

Every one now knows that no such " History, Charges andRegulations" had come from Italy ; that the Charges were not

"extracted from the Ancient Records of Lodges beyond Seas,"

because there were no other such Lodges ; that the whole account

of Constitutions adopted by a Grand Lodge at York, of which

Prince Edwin was Grand Master, and of the adoption of Consti-

tutions in the times of Henry VI. and of Edward IV. , was fabu-

lous. No one knows anything about the real origines of the

Charges or Regulations, except that the former, at least, were

known and used in Scotland before they were in England ; and,

in short, it is no longer denied that the whole account of the sources

from which both were derived is a fiction,—in plain words, an

impudent congeries of lies.

But being ' drawn out ' by Anderson, they were adopted by

the Grand Lodge, and by that became obligatory, being in no

wise vitiated by the false statements as to the antiquity of the

sources from which they were derived, any more than the laws

of Numa Pompilius were, because, to give them greater sanctity,

he pretended that they were dictated to him by the NymphEgeria ; or those of Minos, who claimed for them a divine origin.

The m-igines of Nations and of ancient Churches, Societies and

Associations are alike enshrouded in the obscurity of the Past.

What is really known in regard to the origin of Kome ? Nothing.

Niebuhr long ago exploded the accepted fictions in regard to

Romulus and Remus. What is known as to the origin and the

adoption tof statutes and rules by any one of all the many Guilds

of England ? Nothing. And so nothing is known as to the real

origin of the Constitutions of Symbolic Masonry. Who knows

by what authority the ' Ancient Landmarks ' were established ?

No one. History and tradition are alike mute on the subject.

The next Rite that made its appearance in Masonry was that

of Perfection or H6r6dom, in France, composed of the Blue

Degrees and 22 others, the 18th being the ' Rose Croix,' and the

25th the ' Prince of the Royal Secret.' Of the authors or origins,

or separate working, before the organization of the Rite, of any

except two or three of the twenty-two Degrees, no information

whatever has come down to us ; and little reliance is to be placed

on what has been told in regard to even those two or three. The

twenty-five Degrees had.been organized into a Rite before 1762.

One by one they had been invented, worked, communicated bythe inventors to others, and at last, how and by whom nobodyknows, had been arranged and aggregated into a system, called

a Rite, which afterwards appeared before the world, and then or

at a later time had Regulations purpmiing to have been framedby nine Commissioners, assembled at Berlin or Bordeaux in 1762.

Whether there ever was any such assembly ; whether, if there

was, it met in 1762, and at which place ; who the Commissionerswere, how appointed and empowered ; and how, when, whereand by what Body these Regulations were adopted, nothing what-ever is or ever has been known.

But tJw Rite was an actuality. It certainly existed before 1762,and continued to exist, accepting these Regulations as the law ofits being

;and no man has, since 1762, become a regular and

lawful Mason of that Rite, except under the authority of thoseRegulations; which, if they were made in 1762, existed in manu-script only for seventy years, before being for the first timeprinted and published at Paris in 1832. I have manuscriptRituals of it as old as the beginning of the present century. TheRite belonged to those who invented it and set it to work: they

had the right to adopt regulations for it, and they and their suc-

cessors alone had and have the power to confer its Degrees

—

as

Degrees of that Rite.

The Grand Orient of France took the 18th of that Rite, the

Rose Croix, made three others out of some of its Degrees below

the 18th, added these four to the Blue Degrees, and so created

the French Rite or Bit Modeme. It was the inventor and maker

of that Rite, and, as such, had the exclusive right to propagate,

administer, and govern it. Nobody has ever disputed that.

The Templar Degree made its appearance in England, brought,

it is supposed, from France, and worked in England as the first

of seven Degrees, of which the 7th was the Kadosh. All these

were given by the Blue Lodges. In Scotland, one Lodge would

sell to another, for a pound or two, the right to confer the Tem-

plar Degree. In England, the Lodges conferred it, and afterwards

the falsely called ' Grand ' Lodge at York chartered an Encamp-

ment at Manchester, composed of artizaus, which conferred the

Templar Degree for seven and sixpence. Then Dunckerly took

possession of it, assumed to be its Chief, and made it an 'Order,'

with a new organization. Who knows any thing about the origin

of the Degree, by whom and when and where it was invented and

first worked ? No man on earth. It is supposed to have originated

in France ; but no one knows that, nor has any one ever seen a

French Ritual of a Templar Degree like ours or like the English

Degree ; nor is such a Degree spoken of, as ever having existed

in France, by any French Masonic writer.

Certain persons established an Encampment in Pennsylvania.

By what authority, who they were, where they were invested

with the Degree, by what Ritual they worked, no body knows or

ever will know. Then Encampments appeared in New England.

Where the makers of them were invested with the Degree, or

whether they had it at all, no one knows ; but as they adopted a

ceremony totally different from those of the English, Scottish,

and Irish Encampments, the presumption is that they had never

been legally invested with the Degree by the rightful possessors

of it ; because, if they had, they would have been furnished

with Rituals whereby to establish Bodies, and would have had no

power or right to reject these and make new ones for themselves,

with nothing whatever in them that even savours of or remotely

resembles the ancient real Templar ceremony of reception into

2

10

the Order, or the present Ritual of any foreign Teraplarism, how-

ever creditable the American Ritual may be to the inventor of it.

So the Royal Arch Degree appeared in England, no body

knows at what date, or by whom invented. The Degree of Mark

Master appeared also, when, by whom made or introduced, no

one knows. In England there grew up Chapters of Royal Arch

and Mark Lodges,—Mark Masonry and Royal Arch Masonry

having no connection there with each other.

But in the West Indies, before 1795, the Mark Master, Past

Master, and Royal Arch Degrees, were worked in the Island of

Santo Domingo, as composing one system, with Rituals trans-

lated from the English ; and it was required that a person should

have the Royal Master and Super-Excellent Master Degrees be-

fore he could receive the Royal Arch. The Degree of Master

Mark Mason, with a Ritual totally different from the West Indian

one, and totally different from our present one, was about the

same time worked at Charleston : and by and by the Degree of

Select Master appeared and was given with that of Royal Master.

Who knows the origin or author or time of origin of the MarkMaster or Master Mark Mason Degree ; of the Past Master De-gree ; of the English Royal Arch ; of the Royal Master ; of the

Select Master; of the Super-Excellent Master? No one. ButBodies of these Degrees were organized : a Rite consisting of theMark Master, Past Master, Most Excellent Master, (known to

have been made in the United States,) and Royal Arch, was or-

ganized, with Chapters, Grand Chapters of States, and a GeneralGrand Chapter of the United States ; and a Rite consisting ofthe Royal and Select Master, and in some States of the SupersExcellent Master Degrees, was also organized, with Councils,Grand Councils, and, finally, and very lately, a National GrandCouncil.

And those who had possession of the Templar Degree in NewEngland made the Red Cross Degree out of two Degrees of theRite of Perfection, and organized it and the Templar Degreeinto another Rite, with Encampments or Commanderies, GrandEncampments or Grand Commanderies, and a Grand Encamp-ment of the United States.

Who knows anything in regard to the origin of the two De-grees out of which the Red Cross was made ? No one. When,how, by whom they were made, no one knows.

11

But, to one thing all agree : that to the Bodies of each of these

Rites, the Rite as orgauized, and as administered by them, exclu-

sively belongs ; and if the Degrees of either are given by any

other authority, the recipient is a spurious Royal Arch, a spurious

Templar, a spurious Select Master; and that any one who, not

being regularly invested with either of the Degrees, should un-

dertake to give it, and establish Bodies of it, would be a fraudu-

lent impostor and a knave, no better than a sneak-thief.

And though a Negro Lodge, Chapter, or Commandery may

give precisely the same Degrees in all respects, by identically the

regular Rituals, one so receiving either is held, every where in

the United States, to be no Master Mason, no Royal Arch Mason,

no Knight Templar, not having the Degrees from the legitimate

authority.

In 1801 another Masonic Rite made its appearance at Charlesr

ton, in South Carolina, composed of the 25 Degrees of the Rite

of Perfection, and eight others added to them, and claiming to

have been organized at Berlin in 1786. It had, in manuscript,

its Grand Constitutions written in French, purporting to have

been made at Berlin, in Prussia, in a Supreme Council of the

33d Degree, duly and legally established and constituted there

on the 1st of May, 1786, at which Council was present the King

of Prussia, Frederic the Great, Sovereign Grand Commander.

In 1802, the Supreme Council of the 83d Degree for the United

States of America announced to the world, by formal manifesto,

its establishment on the 31st of May, 1801. Since then it has

had continuous existence under its Constitutions to the present

day, with periods of inactivity ; sometimes, perhaps, with na

subordinate Bodies, never with many, until after 1855. All this

was but natural for such a Body, Supreme Power of such a Rite,

and in such a country, which, having a special Masonry of its

own, regarded the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite as intru-

sive. It has never had less than three members, and was but

once, sixty and more years ago, reduced to that; and, by its or-

ganic law, three constitute a Supreme Council, as three Master-

Masons constitute a Lodge.

In 1814, it created the Supreme Council for the Northern

Jurisdiction of the United States at New York, and itself took

the title of the Supreme Council for the Southern Jurisdiction.

12

There are now some twenty-four Supreme Councils of this Rite

iu the world, all of which, with the exception of two or three,

have been created by authority, either immediate or transmitted,

from that established at Charleston in 1801. It is more widely

diffused than any other Rite of Masonry in the world, and, in its

higher Degrees, many times more so than either the Royal Arch

or Templar Rite, which are confined to English-speaking countries

;

and the two Supreme Councils of the United States have of their

Obedience over two hundred different Bodies.

By the same law that obtains as to the other Rites, this Rite

belonged to those who formed, organized and established it.

Whether its Constitutions were framed and adopted at Berlin or

not, they were valid as its fundamental law, because they were

accepted, adopted and promulgated as such law in 1801.

This Rite was and is called the Ancient and Accepted Scottish

Rite; and no oiher Rite under that name or with all the same

Degrees has ever made its appearance. No man has ever regu-

larly received its Degrees, since the adoption of the Constitutions,

without swearing to obey them as the supreme law of the Rite

:

and it is not possible that a Body of any Degree can be a Body

of this Rite, if it denies the authority of its Grand Constitutions.

The Rite exists and is active, with its Organic Law* and its

Governing Bodies, precisely as the other Rites exist and are

active : and its origin and the origin of its Constitutions, like the

origin of all other Rites, is not historically known to us with

certainty. If there was a Supreme Council at Berlin, no record

of its sessions remains. If there were written minutes of those

of the Supreme Council at Charleston for half a century, they

have been destroyed or lost. There was not anciently any law

that required the minutes of a Body to be recorded in books

;

and they were universally kept on loose sheets or paper-rolls,

when kept at all.

So the early records or minutes of Templarism in England,

the 'records' of the 'immemorial Encampments,' if they kept

any, have utterly disappeared, like those of the Bodies of the

Rite of Perfection in France, and those of the old Blue Lodgesin France and England, Scotland and Ireland. No man of this

or the last generation has seen the minutes of any of these early

Lodges, of the Grand Lodge of France for a score or two of years

after its establishment, of any Encampment of Templars before

13

the time of Dunckerly. I have been endeavouring in vain to

find the minutes of the proceedings of the Grand Orient of

France, from 1807 to 1815. When did the Grand Lodge of

England begin to keep its minutes? and who has seen those

from 1717 to 1723? Where are the oldest minutes of "the old

Grand Lodge at York? " Who has seen the earliest minutes of

Dermott's Grand Lodge? Where is the book that contains the

record of its sessions during the first years of its existence? Thekeeping of formal records was not an essential characteristic of

Masonry in the old days ; and the ancient history of Blue Masonryis, therefore, more mythical than that of Etruria or Rome.

Fortunately, it is no longer considered necessary to resort to

fictions, impudent and ridiculous, to support the claim to legiti-

macy of any Degree or Rite of Free-Masonry. Nothing, in re-

ligion or history or mythology, has ever equalled the riotous

exuberance of fiction in which the earlier Masonic writers in

England revelled, in regard to the Blue or Symbolic Masonry;

and multitudes of Masons religiously believe these impudent

fictions yet. They sufficed at the time when they were invented,

but they are unnecessary and exploded now.

One Joseph Cemeau came, in 1806 or 1807, from the Island of

Cuba to New York, which was within the Jurisdiction of the

Supreme Council of the United States at Charleston. He was

a Prince of the Royal Secret, of the 25th Degree of the Rite of

Perfection, made such in 1806, at Baracoa in Cuba, and also

made Deputy Inspector for the northern part of that Island, by

Mathieu Dupotet, an Inspector of the Rite of Perfection, by au-

thority transmitted from Etienne Morin ; and he was no more.

It is admitted by his Historiographer, Folger, that he did not, at

first, pretend to have been invested with any other Degrees than

the twenty-five of the Rite of Perfection. Afterwards he falsely

pretended to have the additional Degrees of the Ancient and

Accepted Scottish Rite, and the Templar Degree, and he

trafficked in all, and in one called 'Aaron's Band,' and so plyed

a somewhat profitable trade in these shoddy and bogus com-

modities. Whatever he may or may not have been, and what-

ever 'authority or commission or inherent prerogative he may

have had, he invaded the jurisdiction of a lawful and regular

Supreme Council of the United States, was a trespasser, intruder

and interloper, a disturber of the Masonic peace, without the

14

slightest power to give a Degree or establish a Body of the An-

cient and Accepted Scottish Rite. All that he did was, on that

ground alone, merely null and void.

This person established in New York, without any authority

to do so, even under his Patent from Dupotet, a "Sovereign

Grand Consistory" of Princes of the Eoyal Secret, of the 25th

Degree, of the Ancient and Primitive Rite of Heredom, but

calling it of the 32d, whose members from time to time se-

lected some of themselves and rewarded them with what they

called the 33d Degree, which gave them no powers, but was a

mere naked decoration, and therefore not the 83d Degree estab-

lished by the Grand Constitutions of the Ancient and Accepted

Scottish Rite; and these 33ds, so made, were in the aggregate

styled a Supreme Council, a merely ornamental group, whichhad no powers at all ; all powers of government and administra-

tion, of legislation and judicial decision, belonging to the Princes

of the Royal Secret in Grand Consistory.

All the 32ds in the world could not make a 33d of the Ancientand Accepted Scottish Rite. Nor could there be a SupremeCouncil of that Rite without powers, a mere nominis umbra.

And if Cerneau had actually been a 33d and had had powerto create a Supreme Council, his action, investing a Grand Con-sistory with supreme powers, and providing for a nominal -Su-

preme Council with none, would have been utterly irregular, in •

gross violation of the Constitutions of the Rite, and absolutely

null and void.

Undoubtedly, if he had had competent authority, he couldhave established Bodies of the Rite of Perfection in twenty-five

Degrees in New York, and the Supreme Council at Charlestoncould have had nothing to say against it ; for its Rite had notswallowed or extinguished that of Perfection, nor obtained anyexclusive title to its twenty-five Degrees. But the whole ofCerneau's action was a mere impudent inposture and fraud.

Nothing could have been more brazenly fraudulent than his

styling the Degree of Prince of the Royal Secret of the Rite ofHeredom or Perfection, the 'Thirty-second' Degree; for that Riteconsisted of twenty-five Degrees and no more ; and he never hadany Thirty-second Degree, or any other Degree above the 25thof that Rite. He was simply an audacious knave and impostor,

earning money by dealing in stolen wares under false pretences ;.

15

as he was in giving the Degree of Knight Templar, which also

he never Had. It is now boldly asserted that he had a commis-

sion from the Grand Orient of France, which is an audacious

lie; for no man has ever seen such a commission; and he covMnot have had one, because, until 1815, the Grand Orient of

France never controlled the Degrees above the 18th.

Undoubtedly, he might have made himself the author of a

new Rite, by inventing or procuring some one to invent for him

eight Degrees, in addition to those possessed by him, and calling

the last the 33d, and making a Body of it the Supreme Powerof the Rite.

But he could neither appropriate the names borne by Degrees

of the same numbers, in the Ancient and Accepted Rite, nor

claim and pretend that the Degrees of his invention were identi-

cal with those; nor give to his Rite the name of " Ancient and

Accepted Scottish Rite," nor pretend and claim that it was the

same as that practiced by the Supreme Councils at Charleston,

of France, and others, under the Grand Constitutions purporting

to have been made in 1786, without being guilty of imposture

and rascality, and of obtaining money under false pretences.

All such performances are what in the French language are styled

escroquerie'and frvprnnerie.

When any Rite has become established, those who obtain its

Degrees pay for them, sometimes very considerable sums. Bybeing invested with these Degrees, by the possession of the means

of recognition, (only to be honestly obtained by paying for them,

and only by paying the person or Body entitled by the Cotistitu-

tions of the Rite to receive the fee,) and by becoming a member

of the Order, Society, or Association, a person obtains valuable

rights and privileges,—the right to be defended in danger and

aided in adversity, the privilege of finding Brothers wherever

the Order exists, a joint ownership in the property of the Lodge

or other Body to which he belongs, titles and decorations which,

if he pays for them and obtains them honestly, he has a right to

be proud of, and the right to letters, if he travels, making him

favourably known to distinguished persons in other countries.

Now, if any one not legally invested with the Degrees of the

Rite or Order, and having no authority derived from the founders

to give its Degrees and establish Bodies of it, comes into its Juris-

diction and gives what are, or what he pretends are, its Degrees,

16

and establishes Bodies of it, the persons invested with his gew-

gaws are not lawfully in possession of them, and the bodies that

he creates are spurious, and he is a rogue, even worse than a

thief, for so obtaining money by false pretences and selling what

does not belong to him—a knave of the scurviest sort ; a poor,

contemptible, impudent impostor and sharper.

One can scarcely conceive of a more disreputable or dirty

occupation. The pretended authority of the bilk who practices

it rests on lies. He must sustain himself by continual lying,

entrap the unwary by lying, make decent men parties to fraud

by lying, sell his stolen or shoddy wares by the aid of lies, must

lie from the rising of the suu until the going down thereof, must

live in an atmosphere of lies, be saturated with mendacity, be-

come a walking fraud, filch money from men's pockets by lies,

cheat, cozen, pilfer by lies, and be equally without conscience or

shame.

"Lafowrherie ajouie h, malignite au memonge."

If the axioms, which need no demonstration, that Degrees

belong to those who make, compose, or compile them, and who

do not sell or abandon their right of proprietorship over them,

and that Rites belong to those who organize and establish them,

and are the first workers of them, were not true, or could be

changed into lies, or cease to govern in Masonry, there would no

longer be any clandestine or irregular Masons, or spurious Bodies,

or any Masonic legitimacy : a man receiving the Blue Degrees

in a Negro Lodge, or by reading a book, would be as good a

Mason as anyone; and anybody who pleased could give Degrees

and establish Lodges and Grand Lodges, Chapters, Comman-deries, Councils and Consistories; and all Masonry would be

destroyed.

For, when an Apprentice is asked, what makes him a Mason,

he answers, "My obligation ;" and if a man who never took the

obligation of a Degree to the real owner and lawful possessor of

it, still has the Degree and can give it and create Bodies of it,

the whole bottom of Masonry has dropped out. If he actually,

but surreptitiously, has obtained a knowledge of the whole Ritual

of the Degree, it is a baser act on his part to use for profit whathas been basely obtained, than it is to make a Degree and repre-

sent it to be and sell it for a regular Degree of a regular Rite,

17

when it is not that at all. For, in the latter case, he only steals

the name of the Degree ; and, in the former, he steals that and

the substance of it together.

It is time that some things should be called by the right names.

Theft is nothing less than theft, whatever it be that a man steals.

The man who, without having lawful and regular investiture

with a Degree, claims to possess it, is an impostor, and, there-

fore, a knave. For him to give it for money, is cozenage : to

establish spurious or irregular Bodies is sheer rascality : and for

men not ignorant and misled, to endeavour to get the right to

enjoy the benefits and privileges, of any Eite, for sums far smaller

than those pay who obtain it at the hands of regular Bodies, and

without taking the proper obligations to the regular possessors,

hoping thereby to share in what is not their own, is dishonesty

and indecency.

Bro. •. William J. Hughan, of Torquay in England, has noticed

in the London Free-Mason the pamphlet. "Masonic Origines." I

am indebted to him for pointing out an error into which I had

fallen, which I have corrected in this edition.

I copy the followiug paragraph from his notice

:

"He asks (1), 'when did the Grand Lodge of England begin

to keep its n)inutes?' I reply, from 1723; and their chief records

are to befound in the History of Free-Masonry, by Bro.-. Gould,

being copies of the Original records still preserved at Free-Masons'

Hall, which many of us have seen and handled."

No doubt; but the Grand Lodge was established in 1716,

according to Anderson ; and what I was commenting on was the

absence of records or minutes of the organization of Bodies, of

their 'origines,' and of their earliest proceedings. None at all are

to be found of the mganizatim of the Grand Lodge of England,

in the shape of authenticated minutes; and we have no record of what

it did for six or seven years.

Speaking of " the great Masonic event of the eighteenth cent-

uj.y,_the Assembly of 1717,

—

out of which sprang the Grand Lodge

of England, the Mother of Grand Lodges," Bro.-. Gould says:

18

" UnfortunaMy, the mimites of Grand Lodge only commence on June

24, 1723.

"For the history, therefore, of the first six years of the newregvme, we are mainly dependent on the account given by Dr.

Anderson in the ' Constitutions' of 1738, nothing whatever relating

to the proceedings of the Grand Lodge, except the ' General Regulations'

of 1121, having been inserted in the earlier edition of 1723." 4GoiM, 279.

Anderson says that after the rebellion was over in 1716, the

four old Lodges (which had no names or numbers, being desig-

nated only by the ale-houses or taverns where they met), with

some old Brothers, met at the Apple Tree Tavern, and "consti-

tuted themselves a Grand Lodge ^ro tempore in due form," and

"revived the Quarterly Communication of the officers of Lodges

(cail'd the Grand Lodge)," and resolved to hold the Annual

Assembly and Feast, and then to chuse a Grand Master from

among themselves, until they should have the honour of a noble

Brother at their head." 4 GouM, 279, 280. The date of this

meeting is not given.

But the Assembly and Feast (annual) were held afterwards,

on St. John Baptist's day, 1717, at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-

house, when Antony Sayer, Gentleman, was elected Grand Master

of Masons, and Jacob Laraball, a Carpenter, «nd Captain Joseph

Elliott, Grand Wardens. The Grand Master " commanded the

Masters and Wardens of Lodges to meet the Grand Officers every

quarter in communication." This was the Grand Lodge, which did

not elect the Grand Master and Grand Wardens.

George Payne was elected Grand Master of Masons, at the

Assembly and Feast, 24 June, 1718, and a city Carpenter and aStonecutter, Grand Wardens ; Desaguliers, at the Assembly andFeast, 24 June, 1719; and George Payne a second time, at those

on 24 June, 1720.

Then, at the Quarterly Communication, or Grand Lodge in

ample form, on St. John Evangelist's day, 1720, the selection ofthe Grand Master was provided for, to be made by the GrandLodge, on the nomination of the actual Grand Master; and the

power of appointing the Deputy and the Grand Wardens wasgiven to the Grand Master "according to antient custom, whennoble Brothers were Grand Masters." 4 Gould, 281.

These statements and others that follow, in regard to the As-semblies and Feasts and the Grand Lodge, were published by

19

Anderson in 1738; and Gould admits "that the history of the

Grand Lodge, from 1717 to 1723, as narrated by Anderson, is,

to say the least, very unsatisfactorily attested." 4 Gmild, 292.

And in a note he shows that the information which Anderson

furnishes was derived from hearsay, as he was not affiliated in

English Masonry until after the election as Grand Master of the

Duke of Montagu, in 1721.

I add here, as illustrating what I have said in regard to un-

certainty as to the origins of Bodies, what Bro.'. Gould says in

regard to two ancient Lodges, each older than the Grand Lodgeof England

:

"Between the years 1710 and 1748, the Alnwick records, ^not wholly wanting, contain at best very trivial entries." 4 Gould

267.

Do any minutes of it show anything in regard to its organiza-

tion and first meeting ?

"The earliest entry in the minute-book of Swalwell Lodge is

of September 29, 1725."

Does this, or anything afterwards, show anything in regard to

its origin or early history ?

But I have looked into Bro."- Gould's History for those " chief

records" which are to be found therein, being "copies of the

Original Records;" and this is what I have found

:

The earliest proceedings recorded in the minutes of the Grand

Lodge of England are of 24 June, 1723, given by Gould, Vol.

IV, pp. 373-375. There were present the Duke of Wharton,

Grand Master, Dr. Desaguliers, Dep. . Gr. . Master, and the two

Gr.'. Wardens.

After the minutes of this meeting, those of the Quarterly

Communication of November 25 are given. The two extracts

cover three quarto pages. Then follows Anderson's statement of

what was done on the day of that Quarterly Communication.

Then are given certain questions settled on the 19th of Feb-

ruary, 1724, and the 28th of April of the same year; and ex-

tracts and quotations from the records or minutes of the following

dates: November 21, 1724; May 20, 1725, and November 27,

1725, each distinguished by its brevity; December 19, 1727, and

St. John's Day, Christmas, same year—the former only naming

the Lodges represented, and the latter being a resolution of 3|

lines; November 26, 1728; August 28, 1730; December in the

20

same year; December 15, 1730; March 17, 1731, certain reso-

lutions; June, 1731; December 13, 1733, two brief resolutions;

February 24, 1735; March 31, 1735; with brief references and

extracts down to March 25, 1754.

Gould has perhaps extracted all that is of any importance

from the early records ; and it is very certain that they contain

nothing at all in regard to the origin and first organization of the

Grand Lodge of England ; and that, if any minutes of its ses-

sions for six or seven years were kept, which does not appear, they

are lost.

I hardly think that I can agree with my Brother Hughan, that

"the chief records" of the Grand Lodge of England are given by

Bro. •. Gould. He may have extracted all that he considered of

Value historically; but he has not given us the records themselves.

There may be much in them that would be of very great value

otherwise than historically, as showing the progress of innovation,

as well in the way of depravation as of improvement. A great

many shining lights in Masonry would be benefited by a larger

knowledge of what the old Masonry really was.

I have said to Brother Hughan that to refer Masons to the

costly history of Bro.-. Gould for the minutes and records of the

Grand Lodges is idle. Not one Mason in a thousand in the

United States will ever even see the work ; and a smaller numberwill own it. I have asked him why such minutes as remain

cannot be published, complete, entire, and just as they are, in such

shape that they can be accessible at small cost to Masons gen-

erally. I should prefer to judge for myself whether Brother

Gould has given us the chief records or not. Let us go to the

sources of history, and hear what the old Bodies themselves have

said about their origins and doings.

I do not understand that the few persons who ' revived ' Ma-sonry in England, in 1716 and 1717, had any commission to do

so from the four old Lodges to which they belonged ; that these

Lodges were working at all until afterwards ; and that the mak-ing of the Grand Lodge was the act of these Lodges as organized

Bodies. Where is the proch verbal of the organization of the

Grand Lodge? Nowhere. What if it did begin to record its

doings in 1723? Do the minutes then commenced give any in-

formation as to its originesi No. These continue all in the

clouds.

21

The four old Lodges are only nominum umbrce, ' the shades of

names.' They are wholly impersonal to us. We know nothing

of their previous life ; and the whole story sounds like a myth.

Bro. . Hughan next says, quoting my words

:

(2.) "Where were any minutes of the 'old Grand Lodge at

York,' if there was such a Body?" "I reply," he says, "theyare still at York, from the year 1712, as respects the old Lodge,and from 1725 as a Grand Lodge ; . . . and all from 1712to'1730, and others, are exactly reproduced in Gould's justly cel-

ebrated history."

Let us see exactly what they are.

There is a roll of parchment in existence, containing minutes

of "ajsriuafe Lodge," and occasionally of " a general Lodge" at

York, the first entry being of March 19, 1712, and the last of

May 4, 1730. Persons were "sworne and admitted" and "ad-

mitted and sworne" "into the Honourable Society and Fraternity

of Free-Masons, as well at a general Lodge, as at a private one."

The first entry begins: "March the 19, 1712, at a private Lodge

held at the house of James Boreham ;" and notes the swearing

and admission of six persons, and nothing more. It is signed by

"Geo. Bowes, Esq., Dep. President."

Up to December 27, 1725, there are minutes of 19 private

Lodges, one of ' a Lodge,' one of ' a new Lodge,' one of ' an ad-

journment of a Lodge,' two of ' general Lodges,' and two of ' St.

John's Lodges,' which were general ones, as the ' new Lodge,' ' a

Lodge,' and 'adjournment of a Lodge' were not. We thus have

fmir general Lodges only, in more than thirteen years, and no

' Orand Lodge' meniioned. And these brief minutes, as well as of

the general Lodges as of the private ones, contain literally m)thing

except mention of the swearing and admission of members. Most

of the entries are not signed at all ; some of those of private

Lodges are signed by George Bowes, Dep. President; one of a

general Lodge by Sir Walter Hawksworth, President; and one

of a St. John's Lodge by Charles Fairfax, Dep. President. 4

GmM, 271/.

On the 27th December, 1725, a minute shows that the ' Society'

went in procession to Merchants' Hall, had the Grand Feast,

and elected a Grand Master, Deputy, Wardens, Treasurer and

Clerk. This is not signed by any one ;nor is any subsequent

entry signed by any officer until that of June 24, 1729.

22

Then follow thirteen entries of two lines each of the swearing

and admission of members at private Lodges; one of June 24,

1726, of like admission, at a general Lodge, and one of June 24,

1729, of like admission, 'at St. John's Lodge held at y° Starr in

Stonegate.' The last also records the election of a Grand Master,

Deputy Grand Master and Grand Wardens, and the appointment

of a Committee ' to assist in regulating the state of the Lodge, and

redressing from time to time any inconveniences that may arise.''

And the last entry is of May 4, 1730, at a private Lodge at

Mr. Ceiling's, being the sign of y° White Swann in Petergate,

York, at which it was ordered by the Dep. Masf then present,

that if thenceforth any officer of the Lodge should be absent

from the company at the monthly Lodges, he should be fined a

shilling for each omission. This was signed by the Dep. Gr. Master,

and the preceding entry by the newly elected Grand Master.

On the 6th of July, 1726, there is an entry in regard to a

person who had "presumed to call a Lodge and make Masons

without the consent of the Grand Master or Deputy :" beginning

"Whereas it has been certify" to me," and declaring that "I do,

with the consent of the Grand Master, and the approbation of

the whole Lodge," expel him from the Society : with provisions

in regard to the other persons concerned in the irregularity, andfor others who might in like manner afterwards offend. Butwho "I" was, does not appear.

How the Grand Lodge was formed, and when, these minutes

do not show. In fact, they do not contain the name "GrandLodge." They chronicle a meeting of "a general Lodge" onthe 24th of June, 1713; one on the 24th of June, 1714; ohe

on Christmas, 1716, "held there by the Hon"' Society andCompany of Free-Masons, in the City of York ;" one on Christ-

mas, 1721: and, after the election of a Grand Master by "theSociety," December 27, 1725, a general Lodge, on the 24thJune, 1726; and at St. John's Lodge, 24th June, 1729, the

election of a Grand Master, Deputy Grand Master, and GrandWardens, and the appointment, by the Grand Master, of sevenpersons, one 'Dr.' and six 'Mr's,' "to assist in regulating thestate of the Lodge, and redressing from time to time any incon-

veniences that may arise."

Evidently, as Gould admits, this so-called "Grand Lodge waswithout any chartered subordinates,'' and the same persons met

23

as a general Lodge and as a private Lodge. The general Lodges"were held on the Festival days, in June and December, andthere were regular monthly meetings." The private Lodgesapparently were distinct from these, and additional to the ordi-

nary assemblies; and, Gould adds, "it may well be, were con-

vened exclusively for ' makings.' " IV, 406.

As thirty-six of the entries are of these "private" (or occa-

sional) Lodges, and only seven of general Lodges and St. JohnLodges, these minutes to which Bro. •. Hughan refers me give us

mighty little information about " the Grand Lodge of York,"

except that it was not, in any sense of the word, a Grand Lodge,

and that it had nothing to do. Its origines are not even hinted at.

Bro. *. Hughan further quotes

:

(3.) " Who has seen the minutes of Dermott's Grand Lodge?Where is the book that contains a record of its sessions duringthe first twenty-five years of its existence?" I reply, he says,

"Several of us have seen the minutes and registers /rom their

origin in 1751-2, as they are in the archives of the UnitedGrand Lodge from 1751-2 to 1813, and their main characteristics

are faithfully exhibited in Gould's History."

"From their origin," but not from the origin of the Grand

Lodge. What is known as to that? I did not know that there

were any early records of it, and am glad to be better informed.

The minutes of the Grand Lodge of the "Ancients" date

from the election of Laurence Dermott as Grand Secretary,

which took place in Grand Committee at the Griffin Tavern,

"Mr. Hagarty" in the chair, on the 5th of February, 1752,

present the officers of Nos. 2 to 10. It is, therefore, as Gould

says, impossible to say how far, as an organized body, the exist-

ence of the Ancients should be carried back. A note to the

minutes of September 14, 1752, states that a General Assembly

was held on the 17th of July, 1751, when the Masters of six

Lodges were present. Moreover, the note says that Dermott

never received any copy or manuscript of the former Transac-

tions from his predecessor; "nor does Laurence Dermott," he

says, "the present Secretary, think that Bro.-. Morgan did keep

any book of Transactions—though there is no certainty that he

did not."

It is to be hoped that Dermott's minutes will some time be pub-

lished, unmutilated. Keeping hid away from the general eye ma-

24

terials for Masonic History is a custom that ought to become ob-

selete. The demand of intelligent Masons to-day is for more light.

Upon the subject of the obscurity of Masonic Origines, I add

this from Gould, in regard to the Grand Lodge of Ireland. It

is Ihe oldest extant minute

:

Gould V, 28. Minutes of the Grand Lodge of Munster, 1726.

" At an assembly and meeting of the Grand Lodge for the

Province of Munster, at the house of M'. Herbert Phaire, in

Cork, on St. John's Day, being the 27th day of December, A°°

D". 1726. The Hon"' James O'Brien, Esq", by unanimous con-

sent, elected Grand Master for the ensueing yeare." . .

It was also entered thus, on the 27th of December, 1727

:

" Several Lodges within the Province had neglected to paytheir attendance."

How long these 'several Lodges' had existed, how they began

to exist, and when they formed a Grand Lodge of Munster, are

matters as to which history tells us nothing whatever.

In regard to the Grand Lodge of JEngland, we have no min-

utes or records of either of ' the four old Lodges,' by members of

which, and other Brethren, the Grand Lodge of England is said

to have been formed. Nothing is known in regard to most of

these Brethren; and but for information given by Dermott, weshould not have their names. The age of these four old Lodges

before the revival is pre-historic; All that preceded that event

is, as far as they 3,re cOtocerne"d,- wrapped in the impenetrable

darkness of oblivion.

Thus the criticisms of Bro. - Hughan do not touch the princi-

pal matter treated of in the ' Masonic Origines,' i. e. , the total

absence of original minutes and records, or of authentic evidence

in regard to beginnings of Masonic Bodies and Grand Bodies in

general. He has not succeeded in throwing much light on the

origin of two of the English Grand Lodges.

Perhaps he can tell me where are to be found the minutes of

the formation and earliest proceedings of the Grand Lodge of

the Royal Order of Scotland at Edinburgh?

Or the date of the inventioa and first working of its two De-

grees, and of the Mark Degree ?

GAYLAMOUNTPAMPHLET BINDER

Mafwtaetuntfbr

•AYUMtD BROS. Inc.

SyioeuM, H.Y.Stockton, Calif.

Cornell University Library

HS397 .P63 1887

Masonic orig nes.

3 1924 030 280 196olln,anx

^ LIBRARYANNEX

APR 29|'86 NOV 12

ASHEX

^nom

23233B

ALll

0^